The homogeneous pro-Bush military?

North Country Public Radio director Ellen Rocco reflected on her visit annual National Security Seminar of the US Army War College. Her report is surprising, considering the widely-held belief that political opinions in the ranks of the US military are fairly homogeneous.

She explains the point of the whole exercise. In a nutshell, the War College is a year-long course for mid-level officers who show leadership promise. It is from this pool of mostly colonels that the next generation of generals and strategic planners will be drawn... at the end of each year's course, the Army invites in about 150 people, from across the country and from all professions, to interact with the College attendees just prior to their graduation. The idea is to explore the key issues of the day. To tackle the thornier questions in a safe, no-holds barred environment. To talk about America's place in the world-strengths, threats, vision for the future.

She writes, the Army leadership and guest speakers we heard from and spent hours talking with were almost unanimously opposed to the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Two main reasons: terrorism was based in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other locations… not in Iraq. And, since the invasion, a new center for terrorists has been created. The other reason: there were no weapons of mass destruction or any other valid reason for pre-emptive attack.

She continues that speakers suggested The attack on Afghanistan seemed justifiable; that on Iraq, misguided and driven by an agenda that was being created by members of the Bush administration long before 9/11. This is what I heard from Army leadership at the College, from the students, from the speakers. Indeed, one colonel downloaded material from the mid-1990s that document Wolfowitz's and Rumsfeld's insistence on invading Iraq.

Rocco was impressed by the thoughtfulness and intelligence amongst these men and women who will be the next generation of generals and Pentagon administrative leaders. She also arrived at an interesting conclusion. foot soldiers-the privates and corporals-are more likely to accept unproven accusations and faulty policy decisions from the government than officers higher up in the ranks.

They know that supporting the Leader for its own sake, rather than based on rational reasons, is dangerous. That it costs lives.